> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:52:46 -0800 (PST), PD
> <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 6:45 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:11:23 -0800 (PST), PD
> > > <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 19, 5:32 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> > > > > You have missed the point - probably deliberately. The new
> > > > > philosophy states that the mathematical description *is* a
> > > > > complete description of a system. It does not allow
> > > > > anything else...
> > > > This statement is simply false and is, as I've pointed out to
> > > > you repeatedly, simply propaganda.
> > > > At this point, we are at an impasse.
> > > You have always been at this impasse... Physics IS NOT! to be
> > > defined as "what physicists decide to do"
> > I completely disagree.
> I know...
> > Someone who is not a physicist has absolutely NO RIGHT to say,
> > "Physics ought to be about what I think it should be."
> > What the field is, is determined strictly be consensus by the
> > participants
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 06:52:46 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 19, 6:45 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:11:23 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 19, 5:32 am, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
> >> >> You have missed the point - probably deliberately. The new philosophy
> >> >> states that the mathematical description *is* a complete description of
> >> >> a system. It does not allow anything else...
> >> >This statement is simply false and is, as I've pointed out to you
> >> >repeatedly, simply propaganda.
> >> >At this point, we are at an impasse.
> >> You have always been at this impasse... Physics IS NOT! to be
> >> defined as "what physicists decide to do"
> >I completely disagree.
> I know...
> >Someone who is not a physicist has absolutely NO RIGHT to say,
> >"Physics ought to be about what I think it should be."
> >What the field is, is determined strictly be consensus by the
> >participants
> It should not be. To do so is tandemount to a definition of a
> religion. The tenets of which are considered ordained by God
> and interpreted and 'taught' to the masses by the priesthood.
> These are to be taken 'on faith' by same. IOW, totally
> subjective NOT! objective. I see no difference in this from
> your argument directly above.
You conflate expertise and religion.
Any -- I repeat, ANY -- specialized field requires extensive training
and expertise. This is true for symphonic composition, law, structural
engineering, biochemistry, and physics is no different. This does not
make those fields religions. Religion does not require experimental
validation of its beliefs. Science does. The fact that there is a
system of expertise and training does not turn science into religion.
Any -- I repeat, ANY -- field is defined by consensus. What
constitutes medicine is determined by medical practitioners, where you
like it or not. What constitutes structural engineering is determined
by structural engineers. What constitutes law is determined by legal
practitioners. This is the reason why those have licensing boards. You
cannot practice those fields without a license that says that what you
are doing is consistent with the consensus of the other practitioners.
Is it your contention that medicine and structural engineering and law
are also religions because of this certification process?
> .
> >If you want to be a participant, then you of course would have a
> >voice.
> That would be, by your own definition, an oximoronic statement.
> To have 'a voice' you'd have to be in-line with the subjective
> concensus view. Otherwise you will be declared a dissident,
> a.k.a. a heretic...
Don't be ridiculous. Being a participant means *doing things
scientifically*. There are LOTS of well respected scientists who take
dissident views. Alan Kostelecky is a favorite of mine, who definitely
takes a dissident view about relativity. The difference between him
and you is HOW he goes about what he does, not what he believes. He's
a great example of how you can accept the consensus of what science
IS, and still have dissident views about how nature actually works.
You mistakenly believe that in order to accept the consensus of what
science is, you also have to buy into what the prevailing theories
say. That's not so.
> >But for someone who is NOT willing to be an active researcher, but
> >instead feels compelled to be some kind of armchair coach, telling
> >OTHER PEOPLE, "You shouldn't be doing what you're doing, you should be
> >doing something else instead," that's egregiously egotistical claptrap
> >that is wholly deserving of mockery.
> Define what is meant by 'active researcher'?
There are lots of aspects of this. Have you been engaged with active
researchers and asked this question, or is your exposure to science
through news groups?
> >> >You have stated your position clearly. You have stated that *in your
> >> >view* it is important to adopt a philosophy FIRST and stick with it,
> >> >come hell or high water. You've also stated that *in your view* when
> >> >physics adopted something other than the classical philosophy, it
> >> >ceased to be rightfully called physics.
> >> >Those are your opinions. Physicists, of course, disagree.
> >> What I read is him saying that the classical scientific method
> >> IS the cornerstone.
> >There is no such thing as "the classical scientific method".
> Really? You better get the word out to everyone else. This IS!
> the heart of the issue. That you believe there exists no objective
> definition of THE scientific method says it all.
Whoa. I didn't say there wasn't a consensus view of the scientific
method. I said it wasn't imbued with the label "classical", as in
"classical mechanics" or "classical electrodynamics" or "classical
determinism". And yes, the scientific method is a *consensus* method.
> >He espouses a classical PHILOSOPHY, which includes some tenets about what
> >things are indispensable as assumptions about how our universe works.
> >The scientific method espouses NO SUCH ASSUMPTIONS, and is purely an
> >operational process and metric for success. Calling such a classical
> >set of assumptions the "scientific method" is either deliberately
> >deceptive propaganda or is a shameful exhibition of what science is.
> Yes so-called 'philosophy' is involved but boiled down to the core
> essence the method is logical cause & effect. Diverging from strict
> causality is not scientific by its very definition.
Logical cause and effect is not the same as strict time-ordered
deterministic causality.
You appear to be taking the same position as Alfonso that if what's
described is not strict time-ordered deterministic causality and
uniquely-valued physical states, then it is not scientific by YOUR
definition of "scientific". At least Alfonso admits that what he's
doing is *choosing* a classical philosophy that holds that to be
inviolable. As though nature should respect a *choice* in philosophy.
You go so far as to say that this *choice* of philosophy should be
labeled "objective" definition of science, when in fact no *choice* is
an objective anything.
> >> That one should demand that physics describe
> >> an actual logical, causal system.
> >You both use the terms "logical" and "causal" loosely and with excess
> >baggage. "Logical" does NOT mean "consistent with previous
> >assumptions".
> Where have I ever said it did?
> >It does NOT mean "amenable to common sense". Causal does
> >NOT mean "temporarily prior in a strictly time-ordered deterministic
> >fashion" EXCEPT in the context of a classical philosophy.
> Then give us your 'made up' definition of causal.
It's not made up. Causation is determined by the association of a
controlled change of an independent measurable variable that results
in a change in a dependent measurable variable. There is no time-
orderedness about it, and there is no strict determinism about it.
Those are extra baggage, imposed by classical sensibilities that have
since been recognized to not always be appropriate. Quantum eraser
experiments are a good example of an effect being produced by a cause
that would *follow* the effect temporally by a classical analysis.
There are others, of course.
> >You can spout all you want that this is what YOU think those terms mean, but
> >that is not the meaning of the terms as understood by physicists,
> There that religion again. Here are the 'accepted definitions...
No sir. Colloquial language dictionaries are NOT sufficient for a
specialized field. This is one reason why the field is specialized and
why it requires training and expertise. Without the training and
expertise, you would be inclined to use inappropriate and colloquial
definitions. This is why beginners think that "acceleration" means
speeding up, that "spin" means rotation about an axis, that "color" is
always associated with light, and that "causal" involves strict time-
ordered determinism.
> > ...nor for that matter by philosophers. The fact that you personally WANT
> >them to mean those things, to assuage your sensibilities, will have
> >absolutely no impact on physics. Rail all you want about it.
> Time will tell as to what, ultimately, will have impact on physics.
> Personally, I doubt the our society will survive much longer thus
> its probably a mute cpoint. This is an example of following causal
> relationships to logical conclusions. Any consumption based
> system is ultimately doomed by its basic causal nature.
> >> To diverge from this is NOT! a physical science.
> >And of course physicists will disagree.
> And Catholics disagree with Mormons...
> >Moreover, as an outsider, it's a bit ludicrous for you to try to tell
> >physicists what physics is about.
> Really? I am voicing my opinion NOT! dictating to 'physicists'
> what they MUST! believe physics is 'about'
Very well, that's your opinion. The opinion of outsiders is
unfortunately viewed with reservation. Sorry.
> The objective
> definition of science defines what physwics is about NOT! any
> declarations or concensus.
Sorry, but science IS defined by the consensus of scientists. Science
is a human activity. There IS NO "objective" science other than what
those humans do. As you point out yourself, you are voicing your
*opinion* on what science should be about, and opinions are not
"objective".
> On Feb 20, 4:16 am, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>>> At this point, we are at an impasse.
>> As you are not able to answer a simple question - You lose the argument!
> Oh, bullshit. If your objective here is to *win arguments* and your
> idea of winning an argument is to outlast someone who engages with
> you, then take your little hobby of contentiousness to
> alt.bickering.for.fun.and.exercise or
> rec.philosophy.I.dont.believe.you.and.you.cant.make.me.
Answer the question then!!!!!!!!
Explain why one is not allowed to assume the cat is alive or dead and has to be considered as both if it is other than the dogma which requires that the maths be considered as a complete description?
> I told you we are at an impasse. We have a fundamental disagreement
> about what science is about and how to go about it.
Answer the question !!!!
You being an
> armchair critic, rather than someone actively engaged in the work, you
> can understand perhaps why your opinion might not be very compelling.
Answer the question !!!!
>> But infinite parallel universes are "in principle unobservable" so
>> "should not at all be contained in our conceptual scheme" = self
>> contradiction. But then Logic has been replaced with Quantum logic.
> And on this, you are simply uneducated. The many-worlds interpretation
> of quantum mechanics has nothing to do WHATSOEVER with alternate
> universes in a multiverse as proposed by string theories, and NEITHER
> of these have anything whatsoever to do with the idea that you put
> forward of two universes spatially separated from each other.
I never said it did. Don't change the subject
Answer the question !!!!
You say
> you don't believe in multiple universes that are in principle
> unobservable -- on that I would *agree* with you. This, however, has
> no bearing on the parallel universes you have read about in Discover
> magazine or whatever. Before we can even have a conversation about
> this, don't you think it would do you good to learn exactly what is
> meant by infinite parallel universes in both quantum mechanics and a
> multiverse landscape (two DIFFERENT things),
I am aware they are two different things but I don't see that two sets of infinite parallel universes is an improvement on one. In any case as I see it you are going on and on about parallel universes simply to divert attention to the fact that you haven't answered the simple question - Answer the question !!!!
Snip the rest Just answer the question or accept that I am right !!!!
Explain why one is not allowed to assume the cat is alive or dead and has to be considered as both if it is other than the dogma which requires that the maths be considered as a complete description?
> Answer the question then!!!!!!!!
> Explain why one is not allowed to assume the cat is alive or dead and has to be
> considered as both if it is other than the dogma which requires that the maths
> be considered as a complete description?
The only answer that makes sense here is "mu" -- as Hofstadter explained, this answer UNASKS THE QUESTION.
[Douglas Hofstadter, _Gödel,_Escher,_Bach._]
Your question MUST be unasked, because it assumes an incredible amount of context that is just plain wrong. In particular, it assumes that quantum theory applies to cats, which is quite clearly wrong (I am ignoring your nonsense about "dogma" and "maths").
You seem to be able to think only in a religious mode, dealing with "absolute truths". You need to learn about the scientific method, and how to think scientifically -- in terms of MODELS that have domains of validity (and thus, domains of INvalidity, too).
As I have said before, a cat is VASTLY too complex to discuss in principle, and far too large to be within the domain of quantum theory.
Indeed, for a single elementary particle, neither its position
nor its momentum can be precisely measured by any possible
means, and there is an inherent lower limit to the product of
their uncertainties. But for a large collection of such particles,
both average position and average momentum can be measured to
any feasible accuracy, and there is no inherent limit to the
product of their uncertainties. Note that conservation of
momentum requires the AVERAGE position of a large number of such
particles, bound in an isolated object, to remain constant,
EXACTLY. (At least insofar as one can ignore thermal radiation --
this is really a limit on "isolated".)
As long as you remain willfully ignorant of the theories of physics, you will remain confused. And nobody can help you until you break the bonds of your ignorance.
> On 2/20/12 2/20/12 - 1:43 PM, Alfonso wrote:
>> Answer the question then!!!!!!!!
>> Explain why one is not allowed to assume the cat is alive or dead and
>> has to be
>> considered as both if it is other than the dogma which requires that
>> the maths
>> be considered as a complete description?
> The only answer that makes sense here is "mu" -- as Hofstadter
> explained, this answer UNASKS THE QUESTION.
> [Douglas Hofstadter, _Gödel,_Escher,_Bach._]
> Your question MUST be unasked, because it assumes an incredible amount
> of context that is just plain wrong. In particular, it assumes that
> quantum theory applies to cats, which is quite clearly wrong (I am
> ignoring your nonsense about "dogma" and "maths").
> You seem to be able to think only in a religious mode, dealing with
> "absolute truths". You need to learn about the scientific method, and
> how to think scientifically -- in terms of MODELS that have domains of
> validity (and thus, domains of INvalidity, too).
> As I have said before, a cat is VASTLY too complex to discuss in
> principle, and far too large to be within the domain of quantum theory.
I have already seen your answer and responded to it.
I want PD's answer. He is obviously rather more clued up than you are. Which is why I fully understand his caution. As you obviously do not then I suggest you study the reply I gave to your "answer".
PD finds himself between a rock and a hard place.
Alternatively as you clearly have contempt for me listen to
> > On 2/20/12 2/20/12 - 1:43 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> >> Answer the question then!!!!!!!!
> >> Explain why one is not allowed to assume the cat is alive or dead and
> >> has to be
> >> considered as both if it is other than the dogma which requires that
> >> the maths
> >> be considered as a complete description?
> > The only answer that makes sense here is "mu" -- as Hofstadter
> > explained, this answer UNASKS THE QUESTION.
> > [Douglas Hofstadter, _Gödel,_Escher,_Bach._]
> > Your question MUST be unasked, because it assumes an incredible amount
> > of context that is just plain wrong. In particular, it assumes that
> > quantum theory applies to cats, which is quite clearly wrong (I am
> > ignoring your nonsense about "dogma" and "maths").
> > You seem to be able to think only in a religious mode, dealing with
> > "absolute truths". You need to learn about the scientific method, and
> > how to think scientifically -- in terms of MODELS that have domains of
> > validity (and thus, domains of INvalidity, too).
> > As I have said before, a cat is VASTLY too complex to discuss in
> > principle, and far too large to be within the domain of quantum theory.
> I have already seen your answer and responded to it.
> I want PD's answer. He is obviously rather more clued up than you are.
> Which is why I fully understand his caution. As you obviously do not
> then I suggest you study the reply I gave to your "answer".
I agree completely with Tom. The question must be "unasked" because it
comes with unnecessary baggage that confounds the issue. It presumes
that the two choices you propose are exhaustive as well as mutually
contradictory.
As has been pointed out before, the original rationale for the cat
puzzle posed by Schrodinger was to ask whether superposition of
simultaneous states on the microscopic scale would have macroscopic
implications. This led to a leap that macroscopic systems must be
thought of as being a superposition of simultaneous states as much as
the microscopic system. As Tom told you, this leap was quickly and
firmly DEBUNKED. There is no such leap warranted. The cat as a
physical system cannot be boiled down to a superposition of "living"
and "dead" states, as it is a highly complex system.
Your question, which you so vociferously and repetitively hammer on,
is ill-posed and must be unasked. Instead, you should learn what
quantum mechanics ACTUALLY SAYS. Likewise, you should learn what is
ACTUALLY MEANT by parallel universes in quantum mechanics and in
string theory, rather than confuddle the two as you do.
> PD finds himself between a rock and a hard place.
Bullshit. I decided, and still stand on the conclusion, that we have
reached an impasse that is forced by your ignorance of the subject
matter and your contention that physics OUGHT TO BE about something
other than what it actually is about.
> Alternatively as you clearly have contempt for me listen to
> By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several dozen
people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work history in
physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily engaged in a well-
known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It proves that there are
educated people with lapses in judgment. It is unwise to listen to one
of these people who declares "There is something rotten in Denmark"
and to then conclude that there is something rotten in Denmark. It is
even more unwise to conclude that something is rotten in Denmark and
then to attempt to buttress that by researching other stray animals
(who struggle with steady employment) who you find also muttering
"There is something rotten in Denmark."
If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
talking about. In this way, you are not reliant on buttressing your
simplistic and uneducated concerns with the complaints of others that
have a veneer of respectability. In just the same way, no one should
conclude that string theory is a mess because Lee Smolin thinks it's a
mess; the ONLY way to judge whether it's a mess is to LEARN string
theory.
So far you have steadfastly refused to devote any time to actually
LEARNING physics.
> > By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
> I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several dozen
> people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work history in
> physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily engaged in a well-
> known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It proves that there are
> educated people with lapses in judgment. It is unwise to listen to one
> of these people who declares "There is something rotten in Denmark"
> and to then conclude that there is something rotten in Denmark. It is
> even more unwise to conclude that something is rotten in Denmark and
> then to attempt to buttress that by researching other stray animals
> (who struggle with steady employment) who you find also muttering
> "There is something rotten in Denmark."
> If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
> right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
> talking about. In this way, you are not reliant on buttressing your
> simplistic and uneducated concerns with the complaints of others that
> have a veneer of respectability. In just the same way, no one should
> conclude that string theory is a mess because Lee Smolin thinks it's a
> mess; the ONLY way to judge whether it's a mess is to LEARN string
> theory.
> So far you have steadfastly refused to devote any time to actually
> LEARNING physics.
There is a set of allowed beliefs for a scientist, that is, someone
who is a scientist and accepted in the scienctific community must
believe:
1.There are no absolutes
2. SRT is valid.
3. The validity of SRT and GRT must not be questioned
4. A 6 day by God creation is a myth - actually Divine Creation is a
myth, actually God is a myth
5. There are parallel universes
6. Since there is no underlying reality, mathematical descriptions of
the universe ARE reality
etc
Do this and your career will live. Otherwise you end up like Dingle.
Labelled as a crank.
> > > By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
> > I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several dozen
> > people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work history in
> > physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily engaged in a well-
> > known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It proves that there are
> > educated people with lapses in judgment. It is unwise to listen to one
> > of these people who declares "There is something rotten in Denmark"
> > and to then conclude that there is something rotten in Denmark. It is
> > even more unwise to conclude that something is rotten in Denmark and
> > then to attempt to buttress that by researching other stray animals
> > (who struggle with steady employment) who you find also muttering
> > "There is something rotten in Denmark."
> > If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
> > right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
> > talking about. In this way, you are not reliant on buttressing your
> > simplistic and uneducated concerns with the complaints of others that
> > have a veneer of respectability. In just the same way, no one should
> > conclude that string theory is a mess because Lee Smolin thinks it's a
> > mess; the ONLY way to judge whether it's a mess is to LEARN string
> > theory.
> > So far you have steadfastly refused to devote any time to actually
> > LEARNING physics.
> There is a set of allowed beliefs for a scientist, that is, someone
> who is a scientist and accepted in the scienctific community must
> believe:
> 1.There are no absolutes
> 2. SRT is valid.
> 3. The validity of SRT and GRT must not be questioned
> 4. A 6 day by God creation is a myth - actually Divine Creation is a
> myth, actually God is a myth
> 5. There are parallel universes
> 6. Since there is no underlying reality, mathematical descriptions of
> the universe ARE reality
> etc
> Do this and your career will live. Otherwise you end up like Dingle.
> Labelled as a crank.
> Right?
Not entirely, but item by item:
1. We have no knowledge of any absolutes.
2. SRT has succeeded so far in matching experiment without validated
exception. This is what stands for validity in science.
3. The validity of SR and GR is questioned all the time. But there are
good ways to question and pointless ways to question. I could point
you to a number of good researchers who are questioning one or the
other in a good way. And their careers are just fine, thanks.
4. Questions of religious faith are outside the scope of science
because there there are bounds to the kinds of things science can
answer, and there is no scientific test of these statements.
5. No, this is a hypothesis, yet untested and not really testable at
this point. No physicist would claim knowledge that something exists
that hasn't been tested.
6. You should read my responses to Alfonso on this. That certainly is
not the position of physicists.
PD wrote:
> If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
> right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
> talking about. In this way, you are not reliant on buttressing your
> simplistic and uneducated concerns with the complaints of others that
> have a veneer of respectability. In just the same way, no one should
> conclude that string theory is a mess because Lee Smolin thinks it's a
> mess; the ONLY way to judge whether it's a mess is to LEARN string
> theory.
It is also possible for a non-expert to form reasonable though
perhaps shaky and incomplete opinions by considering a fair
sampling of what those knowledgeable in the field say and write.
What Alfonso does, however, is to cherry pick the most strident
outliers regardless of knowledge in the field and dismiss all
others. That explains why Alfonso has gone all orgasmic over this
Harriman idiot, and why he endlessly quotes Scott Murray.
> So far you have steadfastly refused to devote any time to actually
> LEARNING physics.
Alfonso only bitches and bashes, and for that no real learning is
required. For relativity, Alfonso glorifies Louis Essen, whose
anti-relativity screeds in his twilight years are laughable. It
takes very little study of relativity from a modern source to see
that Essen's writings about the subject are useless junk.
>> By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
> I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several dozen
> people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work history in
> physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily engaged in a well-
> known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It proves that there are
> educated people with lapses in judgment.
So anyone who disagrees with you - even if highly qualified - totally independent of the strength of his arguments is "misguided, wrong, nutty". This is how a faith is defended.
Adjectives such as "misguided, wrong, nutty" should never enter into reasoned debate. It lowers the tone.
It is unwise to listen to one
> of these people who declares "There is something rotten in Denmark"
> and to then conclude that there is something rotten in Denmark.
He makes a damn good, well reasoned case as to why he thinks there is something rotten and I can see ample evidence of the fact that there is something rotten. When physics has reached the state that it believes - for philosophical not experimental a set of infinite parallel universes to preserve every possible history to avoid the concept of causality. Then there is the infinite set of such sets sometimes termed Multiverse with each set differing in that it has different laws of physics or at least different physical constants. There may be yet other sets for all I know. Science used to scoff at religions which claimed the existence of heaven and hell in a separate realm. It was bad enough when it said a cat has to be both alive and dead at the same time purely for philosophical reasons.
And yes we have reached an impasse. Because you refuse to answer a very simply question.
It is
> even more unwise to conclude that something is rotten in Denmark and
> then to attempt to buttress that by researching other stray animals
> (who struggle with steady employment) who you find also muttering
> "There is something rotten in Denmark."
what the hell is that supposed to mean!
> If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
> right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
> talking about.
So I am wrong because I haven't sufficiently learned the field and David Harriman is wrong despite the fact that he has. Scott Murray was also qualified and never short of employment What about the possibility that they might be right and you wrong?
I have studied the history of how physics got to the state it is in now but there was always a missing link. David Harriman has provided that link. The role that philosophy plays in physics and the nature of the change which took place around 1920's. Having qualifications in both Physics and Philosophy he is in a position to make the judgement he does while you are not.
It was obvious to me that a change in thinking took place which I had narrowed down to around 1920 which I have previously described thus "The aether for example was not removed from physics as the result of any experiment. Physics made an arbitrary choice that in future physics theory's did not require what Einstein described as a 'theoretical structure' and which I would describe as a physical explanation. Aether could be dispensed with as it was part of that theoretical structure"
I am amazed by the amount of spin used by people like you. Statements such as "Einstein came up with a theory which showed that the aether was unnecessary". If it is necessary to disguise what happened then it stinks.
I now know that what happened was an arbitrary change of philosophy. It was not that physicists previously managed without a philosophy what is now called Classical philosophy was inherent in the ambiance of the way physics had been taught and the way experiments were presented and discussed. Then a small number of influential people introduced this new philosophy into physics and because most physicists at the time did not understand that it was a question of philosophy they had no way of fighting it.
The picture I have of history in now complete. We are suffering the results of a very damaging experiment where what is supposed to be a science has been conducted under an extreme philosophy where one is not allowed to assume a cat is either dead OR alive despite the whole of human experience. I say again that is is to preserve the philosophical myth that the mathematical description is a complete description so as to hand over physics to the mathematicians. If you think otherwise then you have a bad case of self delusion.
>>> By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
>> I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several
>> dozen people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work
>> history in physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily
>> engaged in a well- known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It
>> proves that there are educated people with lapses in judgment.
> So anyone who disagrees with you - even if highly qualified - totally
> independent of the strength of his arguments is "misguided, wrong,
> nutty". This is how a faith is defended.
You are brutally dishonest.
PD said: "... misguided, wrong, nutty, OR busily engaged in..."
He did not say: "... misguided, wrong, nutty, AND busily
engaged in..." -- That is what *you* suggest PD said.
> Adjectives such as "misguided, wrong, nutty" should never enter into
> reasoned debate. It lowers the tone.
Putting thoughts and words in you opponent's mouth is
pretty disgusting. It should be sufficient to effectively
stop any form of further communication.
> >> By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
> > I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several dozen
> > people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work history in
> > physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily engaged in a well-
> > known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It proves that there are
> > educated people with lapses in judgment.
> So anyone who disagrees with you - even if highly qualified - totally
> independent of the strength of his arguments is "misguided, wrong,
> nutty". This is how a faith is defended.
No. It means that having degrees does not translate into "highly
qualified". When people who have degrees display such a profound and
fundamental misunderstanding of the subject, then I think it's fair to
say that "highly qualified" is a misnomer.
> Adjectives such as "misguided, wrong, nutty" should never enter into
> reasoned debate. It lowers the tone.
> It is unwise to listen to one
> > of these people who declares "There is something rotten in Denmark"
> > and to then conclude that there is something rotten in Denmark.
> He makes a damn good, well reasoned case as to why he thinks there is
> something rotten and I can see ample evidence of the fact that there is
> something rotten. When physics has reached the state that it believes -
> for philosophical not experimental a set of infinite parallel universes
> to preserve every possible history to avoid the concept of causality.
I refuse to entertain further your continual and persistent
mischaracterization.
Causality is NOT abandoned by physics. Strict, time-ordered
deterministic causality through a unique set of physical states is
abandoned. A *specific*, *classical* understanding of causality,
complete with all the extraneous baggage brought on by classical
philosophy is what's abandoned. Abandoning the *specific*,
*classical*, *extra-baggage-laden* brand of causality is not
abandoning causality. I don't know how to be more plain about it. Any
further statement by you that physicists are abandoning causality as a
whole will not be responded to, because I see no point in responding
to obstinate mischaracterization.
> Then there is the infinite set of such sets sometimes termed Multiverse
> with each set differing in that it has different laws of physics or at
> least different physical constants. There may be yet other sets for all
> I know. Science used to scoff at religions which claimed the existence
> of heaven and hell in a separate realm. It was bad enough when it said a
> cat has to be both alive and dead at the same time purely for
> philosophical reasons.
> And yes we have reached an impasse. Because you refuse to answer a very
> simply question.
> It is
> > even more unwise to conclude that something is rotten in Denmark and
> > then to attempt to buttress that by researching other stray animals
> > (who struggle with steady employment) who you find also muttering
> > "There is something rotten in Denmark."
> what the hell is that supposed to mean!
> > If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
> > right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
> > talking about.
> So I am wrong because I haven't sufficiently learned the field and David
> Harriman is wrong despite the fact that he has. Scott Murray was also
> qualified and never short of employment What about the possibility that
> they might be right and you wrong?
Yes, you are wrong because you have not sufficiently learned the
field, and I'm quite confident that Harriman and Murray have not
either. And the key thing here is that, because YOU have NOT learned
the field yourself, you are in NO POSITION to judge whether they are
right or I am right. Your ONLY defense is that you CHOOSE to believe
Harriman and Murray and not believe me, and you make that choice from
a position of ignorance. I do not make my choice from a position of
ignorance. When you have corrected your position of ignorance, then we
may have a basis for discussing further WHY it is plain that Harriman
and Murray obviously do not know what they're talking about.
> I have studied the history of how physics got to the state it is in now
> but there was always a missing link. David Harriman has provided that
> link. The role that philosophy plays in physics and the nature of the
> change which took place around 1920's. Having qualifications in both
> Physics and Philosophy he is in a position to make the judgement he does
> while you are not.
> It was obvious to me that a change in thinking took place which I had
> narrowed down to around 1920 which I have previously described thus "The
> aether for example was not removed from physics as the result of any
> experiment. Physics made an arbitrary choice that in future physics
> theory's did not require what Einstein described as a 'theoretical
> structure' and which I would describe as a physical explanation. Aether
> could be dispensed with as it was part of that theoretical structure"
> I am amazed by the amount of spin used by people like you. Statements
> such as "Einstein came up with a theory which showed that the aether was
> unnecessary". If it is necessary to disguise what happened then it stinks.
> I now know that what happened was an arbitrary change of philosophy. It
> was not that physicists previously managed without a philosophy what is
> now called Classical philosophy was inherent in the ambiance of the way
> physics had been taught and the way experiments were presented and
> discussed. Then a small number of influential people introduced this new
> philosophy into physics and because most physicists at the time did not
> understand that it was a question of philosophy they had no way of
> fighting it.
> The picture I have of history in now complete. We are suffering the
> results of a very damaging experiment where what is supposed to be a
> science has been conducted under an extreme philosophy where one is not
> allowed to assume a cat is either dead OR alive despite the whole of
> human experience. I say again that is is to preserve the philosophical
> myth that the mathematical description is a complete description so as
> to hand over physics to the mathematicians. If you think otherwise then
> you have a bad case of self delusion.
| > On 21/02/12 23:00, PD wrote:
| >> On Feb 21, 3:50 pm, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
| >>
| >>>
| >>> Alternatively as you clearly have contempt for me listen to
| >>>
| >>> http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/ | >>>
| >>> By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
| >>
| >> I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several
| >> dozen people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work
| >> history in physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily
| >> engaged in a well- known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It
| >> proves that there are educated people with lapses in judgment.
| >
| > So anyone who disagrees with you - even if highly qualified - totally
| > independent of the strength of his arguments is "misguided, wrong,
| > nutty". This is how a faith is defended.
|
| You are brutally dishonest.
| PD said: "... misguided, wrong, nutty, OR busily engaged in..."
| He did not say: "... misguided, wrong, nutty, AND busily
| engaged in..." -- That is what *you* suggest PD said.
|
| >
| > Adjectives such as "misguided, wrong, nutty" should never enter into
| > reasoned debate. It lowers the tone.
|
| Putting thoughts and words in you opponent's mouth is
| pretty disgusting. It should be sufficient to effectively
| stop any form of further communication.
|
| Dirk Vdm
You are a brutally disgusting cunt -- that should be sufficient
to effectively stop any form of further communication.
> > > > By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
> > > I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several dozen
> > > people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work history in
> > > physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily engaged in a well-
> > > known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It proves that there are
> > > educated people with lapses in judgment. It is unwise to listen to one
> > > of these people who declares "There is something rotten in Denmark"
> > > and to then conclude that there is something rotten in Denmark. It is
> > > even more unwise to conclude that something is rotten in Denmark and
> > > then to attempt to buttress that by researching other stray animals
> > > (who struggle with steady employment) who you find also muttering
> > > "There is something rotten in Denmark."
> > > If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
> > > right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
> > > talking about. In this way, you are not reliant on buttressing your
> > > simplistic and uneducated concerns with the complaints of others that
> > > have a veneer of respectability. In just the same way, no one should
> > > conclude that string theory is a mess because Lee Smolin thinks it's a
> > > mess; the ONLY way to judge whether it's a mess is to LEARN string
> > > theory.
> > > So far you have steadfastly refused to devote any time to actually
> > > LEARNING physics.
> > There is a set of allowed beliefs for a scientist, that is, someone
> > who is a scientist and accepted in the scienctific community must
> > believe:
> > 1.There are no absolutes
> > 2. SRT is valid.
> > 3. The validity of SRT and GRT must not be questioned
> > 4. A 6 day by God creation is a myth - actually Divine Creation is a
> > myth, actually God is a myth
> > 5. There are parallel universes
> > 6. Since there is no underlying reality, mathematical descriptions of
> > the universe ARE reality
> > etc
> > Do this and your career will live. Otherwise you end up like Dingle.
> > Labelled as a crank.
> > Right?
> Not entirely, but item by item:
> 1. We have no knowledge of any absolutes.
> 2. SRT has succeeded so far in matching experiment without validated
> exception. This is what stands for validity in science.
> 3. The validity of SR and GR is questioned all the time. But there are
> good ways to question and pointless ways to question. I could point
> you to a number of good researchers who are questioning one or the
> other in a good way. And their careers are just fine, thanks.
> 4. Questions of religious faith are outside the scope of science
> because there there are bounds to the kinds of things science can
> answer, and there is no scientific test of these statements.
> 5. No, this is a hypothesis, yet untested and not really testable at
> this point. No physicist would claim knowledge that something exists
> that hasn't been tested.
> 6. You should read my responses to Alfonso on this. That certainly is
> not the position of physicists.
Interesting and thanks.
1. What do you mean 'we have no knowledge of absolutes?'. Well OK, I
am belong to the school of thought that believes there are absolutes,
and we know some of them.
2. SRT and experiment - ok.
3.Then why question SRT? Are they not sure how valid the experiments
are, or do they need to do an infinite number of experiments before
they are sure? In any case, i would like to know the researchers who
are doing so.
4.True. However if we enter a philosophical discussion these questions
become very relevant and admissible. I am approaching this from a
philosophical view, not simply a scientific one, though I would like
to know the difference - does scientific practice incorporates
agnosticism as a requirement?
5. OK on parallel universes, though I find the very concept a cop out
at best and a violation of causality at worst, rendering any
scientific predictions useless.
6. Will read up.
Have been reading Dingle's book, "science at the crossroads". The
treatment and response he reports to have got from scientists is
puzzling to say the least, due to its variance and its incoherence it
seems.
> Have been reading Dingle's book, "science at the crossroads". The
> treatment and response he reports to have got from scientists is
> puzzling to say the least, due to its variance and its incoherence
> it seems.
> On Feb 22, 3:17 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.comnot> wrote:
> > Putting thoughts and words in you opponent's mouth is
> > pretty disgusting. It should be sufficient to effectively
> > stop any form of further communication.
> > Dirk Vdm
> Run to the bottom Dirk - run,run !
> "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> Newtonian mechanics hold good.In order to render our presentation
> more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
> from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
> ``stationary system.'' (Which is a direct quotation from Einstein's
> 1905 paper.)
> And your response to this Dirk was -
> "What is this? Some kind of quote of some post? An introduction to
> the shit you produce later on? Shit that you expect someone will
> bother reading?" Dirk Vdm
> Disgusting indeed !,the stupidity that is and the fact that you
> still keep it there is amusing.You could get a thousand guys to
> tell you that you didn't recognize Albert's quote and you still are
> convinced that you meant something different.You know how it
> goes,live by the sword...
Saint Gehan wrote:
> I am approaching this from a philosophical view, not simply a
> scientific one, though I would like to know the difference - does
> scientific practice incorporates agnosticism as a requirement?
Science neither accepts nor rejects issues of personal faith, which
are outside its domain. You have this entirely backwards: it's your
own personal faith which rejects science, not the other way around.
> Have been reading Dingle's book, "science at the crossroads".
It's perfect for a fool like you who is unable to grasp the basic
concepts and only is interested in bashing science.
| >
| > > Putting thoughts and words in you opponent's mouth is
| > > pretty disgusting. It should be sufficient to effectively
| > > stop any form of further communication.
| > >
| > > Dirk Vdm
| >
| > Run to the bottom Dirk - run,run !
| >
| > "Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
| > Newtonian mechanics hold good.In order to render our presentation
| > more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
| > from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
| > ``stationary system.'' (Which is a direct quotation from Einstein's
| > 1905 paper.)
| >
| > And your response to this Dirk was -
| >
| > "What is this? Some kind of quote of some post? An introduction to
| > the shit you produce later on? Shit that you expect someone will
| > bother reading?" Dirk Vdm
| >
| > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ShitCom.html | >
| > Disgusting indeed !,the stupidity that is and the fact that you
| > still keep it there is amusing.You could get a thousand guys to
| > tell you that you didn't recognize Albert's quote and you still are
| > convinced that you meant something different.You know how it
| > goes,live by the sword...
|
| Brutally dishonest revisited:
| https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2dec399f4d... |
| Dirk Vdm
"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years while his travelling twin sister will have aged
6 years.
Dork Vdm, 12 Nov, 2002.
T = 9 years, Dork has aged 18 years, he stayed at home.
> On Feb 22, 7:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not entirely, but item by item:
> > 1. We have no knowledge of any absolutes.
> > 2. SRT has succeeded so far in matching experiment without validated
> > exception. This is what stands for validity in science.
> > 3. The validity of SR and GR is questioned all the time. But there are
> > good ways to question and pointless ways to question. I could point
> > you to a number of good researchers who are questioning one or the
> > other in a good way. And their careers are just fine, thanks.
> > 4. Questions of religious faith are outside the scope of science
> > because there there are bounds to the kinds of things science can
> > answer, and there is no scientific test of these statements.
> > 5. No, this is a hypothesis, yet untested and not really testable at
> > this point. No physicist would claim knowledge that something exists
> > that hasn't been tested.
> > 6. You should read my responses to Alfonso on this. That certainly is
> > not the position of physicists.
> Interesting and thanks.
> 1. What do you mean 'we have no knowledge of absolutes?'. Well OK, I
> am belong to the school of thought that believes there are absolutes,
> and we know some of them.
I'd be curious what scientifically supportable statements you believe
are absolutely true.
> 2. SRT and experiment - ok.
> 3.Then why question SRT? Are they not sure how valid the experiments
> are, or do they need to do an infinite number of experiments before
> they are sure? In any case, i would like to know the researchers who
> are doing so.
Just because a theory is validated by every experiment to date does
not mean you say, "OK, we're done here. This looks to be right." Every
scientific model is subject to continuous testing. Even conservation
of energy is something that is subject to further test, even though it
is classed as a law. Some of the most revolutionary experimental finds
are the ones that discover that a model that has worked superbly for a
very long time doesn't work in this new case.
> 4.True. However if we enter a philosophical discussion these questions
> become very relevant and admissible. I am approaching this from a
> philosophical view, not simply a scientific one, though I would like
> to know the difference - does scientific practice incorporates
> agnosticism as a requirement?
No, scientific practice simply says that it is not well suited to
answering metaphysical questions or questions of religious faith. It
is mute on those subjects. It does not say that people who are
scientists may not have metaphysical views or religious views. It just
says that what views they have are not the result of scientific
investigation. I think it is a common misconception that scientists
ONLY think scientifically, and that everything they hold to be true is
exclusively the result of science. Scientists are human beings, like
all human beings, and the spectrum of things they believe to be true
are derived from multiple mental strategies.
> 5. OK on parallel universes, though I find the very concept a cop out
> at best and a violation of causality at worst, rendering any
> scientific predictions useless.
I don't see why. We believe very strongly that in THIS universe
momentum is conserved, which allows us to make a number of predictions
about what will happen in THIS universe. It may well be that there is
another universe where momentum is not conserved, and so all this says
is that the predictions we make in THIS universe won't necessarily
apply in THAT universe. So?
The real question is this: Suppose there IS another universe where the
laws of physics are different. How would we ever verify that? The
kneejerk response is, we can't, in which case such a supposition is
not really of scientific interest. But it turns out that there may in
fact be ways that such a universe would be detectable from our own.
There is a book for layfolk by Lisa Randall where she talks about
possible tests.
> 6. Will read up.
> Have been reading Dingle's book, "science at the crossroads". The
> treatment and response he reports to have got from scientists is
> puzzling to say the least, due to its variance and its incoherence it
> seems.
That's not really the problem. Dingle just got confused about
relativity and never understood what it really says, and he made a
number of elementary mistakes that reveals that misunderstanding. The
problem is that someone who doesn't know relativity cannot detect
where in Dingle's book the mistakes are, and so a novice would not be
able to read his book and say "I see why Dingle is castigated."
> Saint Gehan wrote:
> > I am approaching this from a philosophical view, not simply a
> > scientific one, though I would like to know the difference - does
> > scientific practice incorporates agnosticism as a requirement?
> Science neither accepts nor rejects issues of personal faith, which
> are outside its domain. You have this entirely backwards: it's your
> own personal faith which rejects science, not the other way around.
> > Have been reading Dingle's book, "science at the crossroads".
> It's perfect for a fool like you who is unable to grasp the basic
> concepts and only is interested in bashing science.
> ---Tim Shuba---
Well people with a personal faith like me will find it difficult to
practice science, unless I leave my distorted view of reality, which I
call faith, and you call distorted, outside the lab door.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:34:33 +0000, Alfonso <Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>On 21/02/12 23:00, PD wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 3:50 pm, Alfonso<Alfo...@duffadd.com> wrote:
>>> Alternatively as you clearly have contempt for me listen to
>>> By David Harriman who has degrees in both physics and philosophy.
>> I'm sure you will find, Alfonso, that it is easy to find several dozen
>> people with degrees in physics, even some that have a work history in
>> physics, who are misguided, wrong, nutty, or busily engaged in a well-
>> known boondoggle but too invested to quit. It proves that there are
>> educated people with lapses in judgment.
>So anyone who disagrees with you - even if highly qualified - totally >independent of the strength of his arguments is "misguided, wrong, >nutty". This is how a faith is defended.
>Adjectives such as "misguided, wrong, nutty" should never enter into >reasoned debate. It lowers the tone.
> It is unwise to listen to one
>> of these people who declares "There is something rotten in Denmark"
>> and to then conclude that there is something rotten in Denmark.
>He makes a damn good, well reasoned case as to why he thinks there is >something rotten and I can see ample evidence of the fact that there is >something rotten. When physics has reached the state that it believes - >for philosophical not experimental a set of infinite parallel universes >to preserve every possible history to avoid the concept of causality. >Then there is the infinite set of such sets sometimes termed Multiverse >with each set differing in that it has different laws of physics or at >least different physical constants. There may be yet other sets for all >I know. Science used to scoff at religions which claimed the existence >of heaven and hell in a separate realm. It was bad enough when it said a >cat has to be both alive and dead at the same time purely for >philosophical reasons.
>And yes we have reached an impasse. Because you refuse to answer a very >simply question.
Alfonso,tThe simple answer to your original question is, the cat is either
alive or dead, and it does not matter one iota whether anyone looks
or not. When the tree falls in the woods it make a sound whether there
is anyone to hear it or not. Likewise, on the microscopic level every
single process is fully linearly deterministic whether we are capable
of observing its processes or not. Statistics is a fine tool but IMO only zealots or idiots thinks probabilities are anything BUT a result
of underlying deterministic processes. And, truly doubt seriously that Draper or Robert or Shuba has E-V-E-R done any serious research
into the history of science. Why bother???
>It is
>> even more unwise to conclude that something is rotten in Denmark and
>> then to attempt to buttress that by researching other stray animals
>> (who struggle with steady employment) who you find also muttering
>> "There is something rotten in Denmark."
>what the hell is that supposed to mean!
>> If you want to know whether something is rotten in the field, then the
>> right thing to do is to LEARN the field, so that you know what you're
>> talking about.
>So I am wrong because I haven't sufficiently learned the field and David >Harriman is wrong despite the fact that he has. Scott Murray was also >qualified and never short of employment What about the possibility that >they might be right and you wrong?
>I have studied the history of how physics got to the state it is in now >but there was always a missing link. David Harriman has provided that >link. The role that philosophy plays in physics and the nature of the >change which took place around 1920's. Having qualifications in both >Physics and Philosophy he is in a position to make the judgement he does >while you are not.
>It was obvious to me that a change in thinking took place which I had >narrowed down to around 1920 which I have previously described thus "The >aether for example was not removed from physics as the result of any >experiment. Physics made an arbitrary choice that in future physics >theory's did not require what Einstein described as a 'theoretical >structure' and which I would describe as a physical explanation. Aether >could be dispensed with as it was part of that theoretical structure"
>I am amazed by the amount of spin used by people like you. Statements >such as "Einstein came up with a theory which showed that the aether was >unnecessary". If it is necessary to disguise what happened then it stinks.
>I now know that what happened was an arbitrary change of philosophy. It >was not that physicists previously managed without a philosophy what is >now called Classical philosophy was inherent in the ambiance of the way >physics had been taught and the way experiments were presented and >discussed. Then a small number of influential people introduced this new >philosophy into physics and because most physicists at the time did not >understand that it was a question of philosophy they had no way of >fighting it.
>The picture I have of history in now complete. We are suffering the >results of a very damaging experiment where what is supposed to be a >science has been conducted under an extreme philosophy where one is not >allowed to assume a cat is either dead OR alive despite the whole of >human experience. I say again that is is to preserve the philosophical >myth that the mathematical description is a complete description so as >to hand over physics to the mathematicians. If you think otherwise then >you have a bad case of self delusion.
In the end, your impasse was preordained. Using Heinlein's metaphor
you shall never teach the pig to sing... Simply put, these types
will ALWAYS BELIEVE that if you don't agree with the standard views
you are lacking in 'truly' understanding. There simply cannot BE any
other explanation. Physics, in their view will alway be only whgat
the concensus agrees it is... You, nor anyone else will be able to
change the mindset.
But, people like to watch train wrecks in slow motion.
> Saint Gehan wrote:
> > I am approaching this from a philosophical view, not simply a
> > scientific one, though I would like to know the difference - does
> > scientific practice incorporates agnosticism as a requirement?
> Science neither accepts nor rejects issues of personal faith, which
> are outside its domain. You have this entirely backwards: it's your
> own personal faith which rejects science, not the other way around.
> > Have been reading Dingle's book, "science at the crossroads".
> It's perfect for a fool like you who is unable to grasp the basic
> concepts and only is interested in bashing science.
> ---Tim Shuba---
Well people with a personal faith like me will find it difficult to
practice science, unless I leave my distorted view of reality, which I
call faith, and you call distorted, outside the lab door.
=========================================
It is amusing how Prophet Shuba describes himself as
"you" and hasn't the balls to admit his personal faith rejects
the basic concepts.
> > Saint Gehan wrote:
> > > I am approaching this from a philosophical view, not simply a
> > > scientific one, though I would like to know the difference - does
> > > scientific practice incorporates agnosticism as a requirement?
> > Science neither accepts nor rejects issues of personal faith, which
> > are outside its domain. You have this entirely backwards: it's your
> > own personal faith which rejects science, not the other way around.
> > > Have been reading Dingle's book, "science at the crossroads".
> > It's perfect for a fool like you who is unable to grasp the basic
> > concepts and only is interested in bashing science.
> > ---Tim Shuba---
> Well people with a personal faith like me will find it difficult to
> practice science, unless I leave my distorted view of reality, which I
> call faith, and you call distorted, outside the lab door.
I don't know that this is true. There are many practicing scientists
who also have religious faith, and they don't have to abdicate one to
exercise the other.
The only time this leads to confusion is when people think there is
strong overlap -- that questions of religious faith can be tested
scientifically, or that the kind of thinking that supports religious
faith is of value in scientific research.
Saint Gehan wrote:
> Well people with a personal faith like me will find it difficult
> to practice science
Large numbers of people with widely varying faiths have no problem
whatsoever practicing science. You personally cannot even come
close to understanding basic science, for two related reasons I
have previously mentioned. First, you reject science from your
position of extreme ignorance and bigotry. Second, you are
profoundly stupid. You supposedly have spent *years* trying to
figure out how to interpret "light clocks" and "train gedankens",
and yet you don't have the slightest clue how to express any of it
logically or parse an explanation when you see one. You have no
idea how to apply simple algebra to basic physical scenarios. You
have no idea how to apply simple geometry to basic physical
scenarios. You have no idea how to apply simple vector analysis to
basic physical scenarios. You are totally unable to say anything
intelligent about Dirk's material, which is not complicated either
mathematically or logically. You are just an anti-intellectual
religious bigot who bashes science and cannot learn.
